We are against the death of civilians, whom you refer to as collateral damage in the war against terror.

Whose War on Terror?

An Intelligent War on Terror

The Media War on Terror

Saudi Arabia s Phony War on Terror

Russia u0027s Incompetent War on Terror

The war on terror polarizes the world.

The war on terror is an aberration.

The Error of the War on Terror

Bombing can, of course, be a war crime if it is used as an act of terror against unarmed people.

United With Putin Against Terror?

Getting Serious in Russia u0027s War on Terror

In the fight against terrorism, the Strategy abandons the predominantly military viewpoint underlying the war against terror, and embraces a more significant role for the intelligence services.

When Bush declared war on terror, he used that war to invade Iraq.

War on Terrorism After September 11, Bush announced a global War on Terror.

What we are against is terror.

Defending Israel against its Islamic enemies may indeed be a factor in the existential alarmism that underlies the present war on terror.

The Bush administration says that the detainees are enemy combatants in the global war against terror a war that is being waged around the world, and that could last for decades.

Islamic fundamentalists define jihad as a war of terror against the West and call for an Islamic caliphate from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

We hope the US will change its war on terror paradigm and re think its conception of a global armed conflict against Al Qaeda.

A generalized war on fire is as ill conceived as, say, a global war on terror.

By declaring war on terror, Bush united the country behind him.

This, however, conflicts with the goals of America s war on terror.

Against war and those against War.

Instead, it wrought for France and much of Europe Jacobin terror, right wing counter terror, decades of war, and eventually Napoleonic tyranny.

The war on terror appears to be causing a surge in protectionism.

Even a formula like war on terror simplifies a more complex phenomenon.

Dissent and criticism of Bush's leadership in the War on Terror increased as the war in Iraq continued.

Taken together, these factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won.

President George W. Bush was more focused on his global war on terror.

It is also key to the present war on terror in Southeast Asia.

Unfortunately, like the Cold War, the current war on terror is likely to be a matter of decades, not years.

Unfortunately, what emerged was a deeply flawed approach, not least because in declaring a war on terror, America positioned itself against a tactic, not an entity or an ideology.

But continuing support for the war on terror makes it no less self defeating.

Similarly, the US has become less safe since President Bush declared war on terror.

On the occasion of the launch of the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Centre on 12 October I delivered the keynote entitled The Real War against Terror Protecting Women against Violence at the London Metropolitan University.

Today, the United Kingdom's zealous junior collaborator, the United States, wages aggression against sovereign States and violates international law and human rights under the slogan of a war on terror.

Democracy is intrinsically messy, but it won t jeopardize Pakistan s partnership in the war on terror.

But countering them does not involve warfare, or even a rhetorically looser war on terror.

Israel s failure to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war on terror concept.

A relapse into regional war and Islamist terror? Or will developments take an unforeseeable turn?

There areas continue to bear the brunt of Pakistan's engagement in the War on Terror.

The frontier region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is the main theater of the war on terror.

Donald Rumsfeld, America s Secretary of Defense, recently spoke about the Bush administration s global war on terror.

And still others combine the two, pointing to the balance of terror during the Cold War.